The principle of res judicata bars claims that could have been raised in earlier proceedings, emphasizing the finality of litigation and preventing piecemeal actions.

See Mee Chun JCA:

Introduction

[1] The respondents as the plaintiffs had filed a claim (current claim) against the appellant as the defendant for inter alia liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD) and various declarations. the appellant had filed an application to strike out the respondents' claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(b) or (d) and/or O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012) on the grounds of res judicata and abuse of Court's process.

[2] The High Court (HC) had dismissed the application which led to this appeal. We allowed the appeal and we now give our reasons.

Parties

[3] The respondents are the purchasers of a property Lot E-17-10 (the unit) which was purchased from the appellant, the developer. The sales and purchase agreement dated 20 January 2015 (S&P) was entered into.

Previous Claims

[4] Prior to the filing of the current claim, it is not disputed there were 3 claims (previous claims) filed by the 4th Respondent on behalf of the other Respondents, in respect of the same unit. These claims were filed for the repayment of interest, known as Developer Interest Bearing Scheme (DIBS) during the construction of the unit. DIBS is a scheme which is accorded to purchasers where the appellant as the developer pays the interest on the purchaser's financing during the period of construction of the unit purchased.

[5]The previous claims are as follows:

[6]Based on these previous claims, the appellant filed its striking-out application.

HC Decision

[7] The HC dismissed the striking out application as the current claim was different from the previous claims. This was because the current claim involved various claims for damages and declarations which were not raised and/or claimed or decided in the previous claims. It was not a plain and obvious case warranting striking out and res judicata did not apply.

[8] Below are the relevant paragraphs from the grounds of judgment (GOJ), encl 10/21-22:

"[15] Berdasarkan kepada hujahan kedua-dua pihak, saya berpuas hati dan mendapati bahawa tindakan ini adalah satu tindakan yang berbeza daripada tindakan terdahulu plaintif-plaintif di Mahkamah Majistret. Ini kerana tindakan ini melibatkan tuntutan gantirugi jumlah tertentu dan deklarasi berkenaan hartanah yang tidak pernah dibangkitkan dan/atau dituntut atau diputuskan di dalam tindakan terdahulu.

[16] Mengambil kira isu di atas, saya berpendapat bahawa kes ini bukanlah kes yang jelas dan nyata di mana Aturan 18 Kaedah 19 KKM 2012 terpakai. Setelah meneliti dan mempertimbangkan hujahan kedua-dua pihak, saya mendapati tuntutan plaintif-plaintif bukanlah tindakan yang boleh dibatalkan dan prinsip "res judicata" tidak terpakai kerana melibatkan kausa tindakan yang berbeza dan tidak sama dengan tindakan terdahulu plaintif- plaintif di Mahkamah Majistret."

Submissions Of The Parties

[9] The appellant's submissions are essentially that the issues in the current suit could have and should have been ventilated in the previous suits, from at least the 2nd suit. The consideration should not be that the issues were never ventilated before. The current claim is also an abuse of the Court process for being brought on a piecemeal basis where it is not allowed by the principles of res judicata.

[10] The respondents' submissions are that there is a failure to satisfy the requirements for striking out based on res judicata and abuse of Court process. The current suit is completely different from the previous suits. The current claim is for remedies for breach of the S&P whereas the previous claims are for DIBS. The causes of action are different. Further, the respondents woul